SCRUGGS 

Fallacies  of  the  British  "Blue  Book" 
on  The  Venezuelan  Question 


A 

A 

0 

0 

0 

y 

2 

\  ^ 

\  ^ 

1 

u 

b 

F 

2331 
B7 
S43 


Fallacies  of  the  British  ''Blue  Book' 


ON 


The  Venezuelan  Question, 
By  William  L.  Scruggs, 

Legal  Adviser  of  the  Venezuelan  Government, 
and  Special  Counsel  before  the  Boundary  Commission. 


McGixi,  &  Wallace,  Law  Printers,  Washington,  D.  C. 


v^cs^ 


^\^tvrx*"' 


FALLACIES  OF  THE  BRITISH  "BLUE  BOOK'' 


ON 


THE  VENEZUELAN   QUESTION. 


The  British  Blue  Book  of  March,  1896,  entitled  "Doc- 
uments and  Correspondence  relating  to  the  Question  of 
Boundary  between  British  Guayana  and  Venezuela,"  is 
perhaps  as  clever  a  presentation  of  the  English  side  of 
the  case  as  the  facts  and  circumstances  would  admit. 
True,  it  seems  to  have  greatly  disappointed  the  English 
people ;  but  its  faults  and  failures  are  chargeable  less  to 
the  advocate  of  a  bad  cause  than  to  the  inherent  weak- 
ness of  the  cause  itself. 

In  so  far  as  its  mistakes  were  foreshadowed  or  adopted 
in  Lord  Salisbury's  note  of  November  last,  and  subse- 
quently by  a  published  synopsis,  they  have  received  due 
attention  already.^  There  is,  therefore,  no  necessity  for 
going  over  that  part  of  the  ground  again.  There  are, 
however,  some  additional  statements  in  the  Book  which 
may  be  thought  worthy  of  notice.  They  may  be  briefly 
summarized  as  follows  : 

1.  That  "  prior  to  1596,  the  Spaniards  had  established 
no  settlements"  in  Guayana;  and,  inferentially,  that 
no  part  of  the  country  was  then  in  their  possession  ; 

2.  That  in  1648,  at  the  time  of  the  Treaty  of  Miinster, 
"the  Dutch  settlements"  extended  westward  to  the 
Orinoco  and  southward  beyond  the   Cuyuni;  and,  in- 

'In  a  pamphlet  by  the  author,  entitled  "Lord  Salisbury's  Mistakes," 
submitted  to  the  Boundary  Commission. 


fcrentially,  that  the  whole  of  Giuiyana,  with  the  possible 
exception  of  the  Garoni  valley,  was  a  Dutch  possession  ; 

3.  That  up  to  1723,  the  Spaniards  had  bnt  one  settle- 
ment in  Guayana,  and  that  was  at  Saint  Thome  on  the 
Upper  Orinoco ;  and,  infcrentially,  that  the  Lower  Ori- 
noco, including  its  immense  delta,  was  under  Dutch  do- 
minion ; 

4.  That  up  to  179G,  the  Spanish  settlements  were  lim- 
ited to  "a  few  Capucliin  Missions  and  two  villages  above 
the  old  town  of  Saint  Thome;  "  jind,  infcrentially,  that 
the  Dutch  held  all  the  balance  of  the  territory  east  and 
south  of  the  Orinoco; 

5.  That  this  Dutch  occupancy,  which  is  claimed  to 
have  extended  to  the  Orinoco  Delta  and  Point  Barima, 
"  was  known  to  the  Spanish  Government,"  which,  how- 
ever, interposed  no  objection,  or  at  least  "  failed  to  dis- 
possess "  the  Dutch  ;  and 

6.  That  "  subsequently  to  1706,  Great  Britain  lias  con- 
tinuously remained  in  possession,  and  her  subjects  have 
occupied  further  portions  of  the  territory  to  luhich  the 
Dutch  had  established  tJieir  title." 

Whilst  these  assumptions  arc  wholly  unsustained  by 
historical  evidence,  or  even  by  the  very  citations  and 
"extracts"  produced  in  the  Blue  Book,  they  shall  be 
treated  with  all  due  deference  and  with  the  utmost 
fairness. 

The  following  propositions  arc  nowhere  denied,  even 
in  the  Blue  Book,  viz. : 

1.  'i'hatni  1108,  Cohunbus,  sailing  under  Spanish  Com- 
mission, was  the  first  discoverer  of  the  Gulf  of  Paria  and 
the  Orinoco  Delta; 

2.  That  in  1 100  Alon/.o  dc  Ojeda,  a  Spanish  subject  sail- 
ing under  Spanish  Commission,  was  the  first  discoverer  of 


the  Atlantic  coasts  of  Guayana ;  that  he  skirted  the  entire 
coast  from  the  Orinoco  to  the  Marowine  and  beyond, 
landing  at  many  pLaces  and  taking  formal  j^jossession  in 
the  name  of  the  Spanish  Government; 

3.  That  in  1500,  Vicente  Yaiiez  Pinzon,  another 
Spanish  subject,  likewise  sailing  under  Royal  Commis- 
sion, was  the  first  to  explore  the  Orinoco  Delta,  taking 
formal  possession  of  its  numerous  estuaries  and  islands, 
including  Boca  dc  Navios  and  the  island  of  Barima,  in 
the  name  of  his  sovereign. 

4.  That  in  1531  Diego  de  Ordaz,  another  Spanish  sub- 
ject, was  the  first  to  explore  the  Orinoco  River,  which  he 
ascended  as  far  as  the  mouth  of  the  Meta,  taking  formal 
possession  of  both  banks  and  of  its  numerous  affluents  in 
the  name  of  his  sovereign  ; 

5.  That  it  was  this  same  Ordaz  who  received  from  the 
Spanish  monarch  the  first  European  Charter  of  lands  and 
government  in  the  territories  thus  discovered  and  ex- 
plored ;  and, 

6.  That  these  first  discoverers,  explorers,  and  grantees 
complied  with  all  the  requisite  formalities  of  interna- 
tional law,  as  that  law  was  then  recognized  and  under- 
stood, necessary  to  invest  title  in  the  King  of  Spain.' 

These  are  historical  facts  so  universally  accepted  that 
it  seems  almost  superfluous  to  burden  this  paper  with 
ponderous  citations. 

When,  then,  and  under  what  circumstances,  did  Spain 
relinquish  her  possessions  in  Guayana  ? 

Before  proceeding  to  the  consideration  of  this  query, 
perhaps  it  may  be  as  w'ell  to  state  in  passing  (especially 

'Justin  Winsor,  "  Nar.  &  Crit.  Hist.  America:  Span.  Explorations  & 
Settlemts.  in  America  from  the  15th  to  the  I7th  Centuries,"  Vol.  II.,  p. 
1.33  et.  neq.:  Irving,  "  Life  of  Columbus,"  &c.:  Also  Hackluyt  So.  Publi- 
cations :  also  B.ancroft,  Caulin  and  others. 


since  it  is  strangely  omitted  in  the  Blue  Book),  that  as 
early  as  1528,  in  order  to  follow  up  Ojeda's  explorations, 
the  Spanish  Emperor  agreed  with  a  Dutch  mercantile 
house  "  to  protect  a  colony  to  be  sent  out  by  them  "  to 
the  northeastern  coast  of  Guayana ;  and  that  this  was 
the  origin  of  the  Alfinger  expedition  of  1530,  which,  how- 
ever, came  to  naught.' 

The  next  year,  1531,  an  expedition  inland,  by  way  of 
tlio  Orinoco,  was  fitted  out  from  Spain  under  Ordaz,  who 
penetrated  to  the  valleys  of  the  Cuyuni  and  Yuruary. 
This  became  the  only  foundation  for  the  pretended  dis- 
covery of  the  fabled  El  Dorado,  sixty  years  afterwards, 
of  which  Sir  Walter  Raleigh  speaks.^  ^ 

In  1534  the  Dutch  made  an  attemi)t  to  penetrate  the 
interior  of  what  is  now  Venezuela.  The  expedition  was 
headed  by  George  of  Spires,  but  was  under  tlie  imperial 
sanction  and  patronage  of  the  King  of  Spain,  who  was 
tlien  also  titular  Emperor  of  Holland.  Spires  started 
from  Spain  with  400  men,  landed  near  where  the  present 
city  of  Coro  stands,  penetrated  some  1,500  miles  into  the 
interior,  and  returned  with  the  few  survivors  in  1538.^ 

In  1549  Ursua,  a  Spanish  subject,  who  had  superseded 
Armendariz,  another  Spanish  subject,  obtained  command 
of  an  expedition  and  founded  a  town  in  Guayana,  fjxr  in 
the  interior;  which,  how(;ver,  he  had  to  abandon  in 
1552,  owing  to  the  hostility  of  the  Indians.  According  to 
the  most  reliable  clironiclcs  of  the  time,  Ursua  ascended 
the  Rio  Negro,  passed  through  the  Casiquiari  channel  to 
the  Orinoco,  and  thence  down  the  Orinoco  to  the  Atlantic 

^  Karl  Kliipfel,  Bib.  des  Literarischen  Verens ;  Stutgart,  No.  XLVII : 
Kliinzenor,  Arith.  der  Deuuschen  an  der  Entelckung :  Von  Kloo's  Die 
We.sler  :  Augsburg,  etc.,  etc. 

'^  Works,  pub.  by  Ilackluyt  Society  :  Justin  Winsor,  "Spanish  Explora- 
tions," vol.  II.,  .'J70. 

•''  Winsor,  vol.  II.  See,  also,  all  the  standard  histories  and  geographies  of 
Colombia  and  Venezuela,  by  Ilestrepo,  Caulin,  and  others. 


Ocean.'  Thus,  as  early  as  1549  the  Spaniards  had  com- 
pletely circumnavigated  the  whole  of  Guayana. 

In  15G8,  the  Spanish  Government  niap})ed  out  the 
country,  and  appointed  Pedro  Mahxver  de  Silva  and 
Diego  Fernandez  de  Serpa  as  Governors ;  the  first  over 
the  ))art  west  of  the  Orinoco,  the  second  over  the  eastern 
section  from  the  Delta.^ 

The  compilers  of  the  Blue  Book  assert  that  in  1505, 
"  Dutch  settlements  were  formed  near  the  mouth  of  the 
Orinoco."  But  it  was  precisely  in  1595  that  Sir  Walter 
Raleigh  made  his  first  voyage  to  the  Island  of  Trinidad, 
and  thence  through  Boco  de  Navios  up  the  Orinoco  to  the 
mouth  of  the  Caroni.  He  reported  that,  after  first  over- 
coming the  Spanish  force  at  Trinidad,  he  ascended  the 
great  river  as  stated,  where  he  found  "  theSj^aniards  had 
previously  traversed  the  whole  country ; "  that  they 
(the  Spaniards)  had  heen  "  cruel  to  the  Indians;"  that 
he  "  made  friends  of  the  Indians,"  and  told  them  ho  had 
come  to  deliver  them  from  their  Spanish  conquerers  and 
oppressors.^ 

In  1596,  Raleigh  sent  Captain  Keymis,  a  companioii 
of  his  first  voyage,  to  renew  the  search  for  the  fahled 
El  Dorado,  "  with  a  view  of  planting  a  colony."  Keymis 
returned  to  England  in  June  of  the  same  year  and  re- 
ported that  "  the  Spaniards  already  occu})ied  the  country, 
and  had  established  settlements  at  the  mouth  of  the 
Caroni "  and  at  "  other  places  "  with  men  sent  out  from 
Spain.* 

In  June,  1017,  Raleigh  fitted  out  another  exj^edition 
of  11  vessels  and  431  men,  his  son,  Walter,  and  Captain 

^  Winsor,  vol.  II.  ;  Bancroft,  Cent.  America,  II.,  61  ;  also  the  Spanish 
colonial  historians. 

^  Winsor,  II.,  pp.  585-6  ;  Certified  MS.  copies  of  Spanish  Archives, 
at  Seville,  now  before  the  Commission. 

^Raleigh's  Works,  Hacklyut  ed.;  Winsor,  vols.  II.  and  III.:  also 
Span.  Colonial  Archiv. 

*Ib.,  id. 


e 

Keymis  being  of  the  number.  The  expedition  was 
resisted  by  the  Spaniards  at  St.  Thome,  in  which  en- 
gagement young  Walter  was  killed.  Ke3'mis  continued 
the  search  for  the  fabled  El  Dorado,  but  was  met  and 
defeated  by  the  Spaniards  before  he  had  proceeded  very 
far  southeastward,  in  what  is  now  the  mining  region  of 
the  Yuruary.  He  returned  to  St.  Thome  for  reinforce- 
ments, but  became  despondent  and  committed  suicide. 
The  next  year  (161(S)  Raleigh  was  beheaded  at  tiie  in- 
stance of  the  Spanish  King,  who  had  been  offended  at 
these  meddlesome  incursions.' 

And  yet  it  is  gravely  asserted  in  the  Blue  Book  ^  that 
in  1590  "  the  Spaniards  did  not  then  hold  any  part  of 
Guayana;"  and  a  carefully-selected  (I  will  not  say 
garl)led)  "extract"  from  a  letter  of  Don  Roque  de 
Montes,  the  Spanisli  Colonial  Treasurer  at  Cumana,  is 
produced  to  prove  this.^  But  even  this  carefully-selected 
extract  proves  just  tlie  contrary.  The  writer  says  he 
had  "instructed  Captain  Felipe  de  Santiago"  of  tlie 
Spanish  service  to  "  ascend  the  River  Orinoco  and  arrest 
two  Englishmen  whom  Raleigh  had  left  there"  as  spies 
and  informers,  and  "  to  advise  the  Indian  chiefs  not  to 
admit  or  receive  any  foreigners  except  Spaniards;"  that 
tiiese  instructions  were  faithfully  carried  out;  that  the 
only  surviving  Englishman  had  been  arrested,  and  that 
the  Indians  were  warned  against  the  intrusion  of  "  any 
more  foreigners."  He  closes  by  recommending  better 
facilities  for  navigating  the  Orinoco,  as  it  was  the  great 
fluviatile  highway  to  western  and  southern  Guayana 
and  the  other  Spanish  provinces.  If  the  Spaniards  were 
not  tiicn  in  actual  possession  of  the  lower  Orinoco,  and 
in  fact  of  the  whole  of  Western  Guayana,  how  were  they 


•  Winsor,  "  Nar.  and  Crit.   Mist.,"  vols.  IT.  and  III.,  and  the  authoritips 
them  cited. 

»  Page  4. 

Blue  Book,  A  pp.,  p.  50. 


able  to  arrest  the  only  foreigner  found  there,  and  to 
warn  the  Indians  against  similar  spies  and  informers  in 
tlie  future  ? 

In  1619,  two  Spanish  colonial  military  expeditions 
were  sent  out  from  St.  Thorme  to  the  Esequibo  and 
Vervice  Rivers  to  punish  the  Aruacas.  The  last  of  the 
two  was  entrusted  to  Captain  Geronemo  de  Grados,  and 
was  composed  of  but  thirty  soldiers;  yet  it  marched  right 
through  the  whole  region,  by  way  of  Baruma  to  the 
banks  of  the  Esequibo  and  returned,  without  once  en- 
countering any  Dutch  or  other  European  settlements  or 
forces;  and  no  mention  is  made  of  any  having  been 
even  heard  of. ' 

It  is  stated^  that  "early  in  the  17th  century  various 
Dutch  Companies  (afterwards  merged  into  the  great 
West  India  Company)  were  employed  in  colonizing 
Guayana,  and  had  established  several  settlements  there 
before  1G14."  But  all  these. trading  Companies  were 
merely  private  commercial  corporations.  Not  one  of 
them  was  ever,  in  any  sense,  a  State.  Not  one  of  them 
ever  possessed  eminent  domain.  Moreover,  up  to  1648, 
they  were  all  under  Spanish  allegiance,  as  was  Holland 
itself.  Therefore  any  grants  they  may  have  made  con- 
veyed no  sovereignty  and  jurisdiction.  Nor  can  any 
temporary  inability  of  Spain  or  her  colonies  to  ade- 
(juately  defend  the  Orinoco  Delta  and  the  coast  west  of 
tlie  Esequibo  against  pirates  and  smugglers  (Dutcli,  Eng- 
lish, or  other),  be  deemed  an  "  abandonment  "  of  domain 
and  jurisdiction. 

In  1671  the  Island  of  Trinidad  and  the  Orinoco  Delta 
being  threatened  by  the  Dutch  and  Caribs,  the  Home 
Government  was  recommended  to  cause  an  inspection 

1  •' Noticias  Historiales  de  los  Couquestas  de  Tierra  Firma  ea  las  Indias 
Occadentales,"  by  Fr.  Pedro  Simon,  etc.,  etc  ,  1626  :  See  Bogota  ed.  of  1882, 
Chap.  XXX.,  p.  401,  et.  seq. 

2  Blue  Book,  p.  4. 


8 

of  the  most  important  forts,  and  to  fortify  the  island 
itself  against  possible  attack.  It  was  also  recommended 
that  an  additional  fort  be  established  at  the  narrowest 
part  of  the  Orinoco,  as  the  Dutch  were  "  said  to  be " 
already  "  near  the  entrance  of  said  river."  But  why  this 
should  be  gravely  cited  in  the  Blue  Book  to  show  that 
the  Spaniards  had  "  abandoned  "  the  Orinoco  Delta,  is 
difhcult  to  conjecture! 

The  Caribs  and  other  native  Indian  tribes  had  often 
Ijeen  incited  to  insurrection  by  the  Dutch  and  English 
during  the  seventy  years'  war  which  ended  in  the  general 
peace  of  Westphalia.  The  Dutch,  and  afterwards  the 
English,  made  annual  presents  to  these  savage  tribes, 
sought  alliance  with  them  against  Spain,  and  finally 
claimed  to  have  established  some  sort  of  "Protectorate" 
over  them.  But,  in  reality,  this  so-called  "  Protectorate  " 
never  amounted  to  anything,  as  we  shall  see  farther  on. 
It  certainly  conveyed  no  eminent  domain  and  jurisdic- 
tion.    The  Dutch  never  claimed  that  it  did.' 

At  the  time  of  the  general  peace  of  Westphalia,  (1G48,) 
the  Dutch  had  four  "  establishments"  or  "  settlements," 
as  they  were  alternately  termed,  on  the  Atlantic  coast 
between  the  Corentyn  and  Esequibo  rivers.  By  the 
treaty  of  that  date,  usually  referred  to  as  the  Treaty  of 
Miinster,  these  four  "  establishments "  were  ceded  by 
S[)ain  to  Holland.  The  first  extended  from  the  Corentyn 
to  the  Surinam  ;  the  second  from  the  Surinam  to  the 
Berbice  ;  the  third  from  the  Berbice  to  the  Demerara ; 
and  the  fourth  from  the  Demerara  to  the  Esequibo.  The 
cession  embraced  no  others.'^  Indeed,  there  were  then 
no  others  in  existence.  There  had  been  frequent  preda- 
tory raids  into  the  Orinoco  valley,  as  there  had  been  in 
other  parts  of  what  is  now  the  Republic  of  Venezuela  ; 
but  there  were  certainly  no  permanent  Dutch  "  establish- 

>l'08t,  pp.  14,  15,  16,  17.  ~ 

■^  Treaty  of  Miiuster,  Oct.  24,  1648,  Art.  V. 


9 

iiieiits  "  west  of  the  Esequibo  River,  or,  at  the  very  farth- 
est, west  of  Cape  Nassau  and  the  Piiniaron/ 

The  citation  of  the  Treaty  of  Utrecht,  of  1713,  was 
{)rohably  an  inaclvertance  on  the  part  of  the  compilers  of 
the  Bhie  Book.  That  treaty,  so  i'ar  from  streiigtliening 
the  English  case,  is  almost  fatal  to  it.  In  that  treaty 
England  obligated  herself  (Article  VIIL),  to  "  aid  the 
Spaniards  to  recover  their  ancient  possessions,"  in  Guay- 
ana  as  in  other  })ortioiis  of  the  West  Indies  and  the 
Americas,  "  as  they  stood  in  the  time  of  Charles  II.," 
that  is,  as  they  stood  from  1G61  to  1700  ;  that  is,  as  they 
stood  just  23  years  before  the  enforced  temporary  "  aban- 
donment "  by  the  Spanish  forces  of  the  coast  between  the 
Esequibo  and  Orinoco,  upon  which  so  much  stress  seems 
to  be  laid  by  the  compilers  of  the  Blue  Book. 

The  correspondence  between  the  Governments  of  Spain 
and  Portugal,  of  1753-4,  is  cited  to  strengthen  the  English 
case.  The  correspondeuce,  however,  shows  nothing  be- 
yond an  ctfort  on  the  })art  of  Sjiain  to  arrange  with  Por- 
tugal (who  owned  adjacent  territory)  to  rid  the  Spanish 
and  Portuguese  Guayanas  of  Dutch  interference  with  the 
Indian  tribes,  whom  they  were  constantly  inciting  to 
insurrection  and  pillage.  Spain  had  become  so  exas- 
perated at  these  meddlesome  interventions,  and  at  the 
frequent  raids  into  Spanish  territory  by  Dutch  adven- 
turers and  freebooters,  that  she  had  well  nigh  resolved 
to  try  to  find  some  means  of  ridding  the  whole  Atlantic 
Coast  of  them.^ 

The  refusal  by  Spain  to  permit  the  Dutch  to  fish  at 
the  mouth  of  the  Orinoco,  in  1758,  has  been  often  cited 
in  support  of  the  Venzuelan  claim,  but  never  before  in 

1  Reynal,  Hist.  Indies  ;  Dalton,  Hist.  Brit.  Guiana;  Depon's  Voy.,  III.; 
Noire,  Ueog.  Works;  Myer's  Geog.  II.;  Bolingbroke,  Voyages,  &c.; 
Brett,  Indian  Tribes  of  Guiana  ;  Caulin,  Hist.  Nueva  Andalucia.  See, 
also,  certified  copies  of  MSS.  Cor.  Colonial  Archives,  Saville,  during  16th 
and  I7th  centuries,  now  before  the  Commission. 

^Archivo  General  de  las  Indias.  Seville,  131-2-17,  Certified  Copies,  etc, 
before  the  Commission. 


10 

support  of  the  British  contoiitioii.  Just  why  it  should 
have  been  cited  by  the  compilers  of  the  Blue  Book  is 
not  clear.     It  is  certainly  against  them. 

The  same  is  true  of  the  otticial  correspondence  between 
the  Dutcli  Ambassador  and  the  Spanish  Government  in 
1778.  It  clearly  establishes  the  fact  of  Spanish  dominion 
on  tlie  lower  Orinoco.  Tiiere  had  been  some  very  destruc- 
tive raids,  claimed  to  have  been  retaliatory  in  character, 
though  not  authorized  by  the  Spanish  Goverimient,  u[)on 
the  Dutch  "establishments,"  not  anywhere  near  the 
mouth  of  the  Onnoco,for  the  Dulch  had  none  there,  but 
on  the  upper  Ese(|uibo.  It  was  one  of  these,  which 
seems  to  have  been  particularly  destructive,  that  con- 
stituted part  of  tlie  Dutcii  Ambassador's  complaint.  lie 
was  assured,  in  reply,  that  orders  would  be  given  to  pre- 
vent such  occurrences  in  the  future,  and  to  "  leave  the 
Dutch  alone"  in  their  recognized  settlements.' 

In  1788,  the  Conhdential  Agent  of  the  Spanish  CJov- 
ernment  in  Guayana  recommended  that  no  more  timber 
be  cut  on  tlie  lower  Orinoco;  and  this  fact  is  cited  ^  to 
show  that  the  Dutch  were  then  "  in  possession  "  of  that 
region !  But  it  may  well  l)e  asked.  Why  such  a  recom- 
meudtition  if  the  S{>aniards  were  not  then  in  actual  pos- 
session? True,  the  reconnnendation  was  made  for  pru- 
dential reasons.  The  forests  were  about  the  only  "  safe- 
guard and  l)arrier  against  tlie  Dutch,"  and  their  Carib 
allies,  who  would  otherwise  "  see  our  nakedness  and  attack 
us."  Apjirehending  raids  by  these  people,  the  Spaniards 
thought  it  ])i'U(lcnt  to  leave  the  forests  standing.  But 
tiiere  is  certainly  no  evidence  of  a  purpose  to  "  abandon  " 
the  lower  Orinoco.  On  the  contrary,  even  the  very 
meagre  and  partial  extract  pi'oduced,  shows  that  the 
Spaniards  were  preparing  to  defend  the  country  against 

'  Archive  de  las  Indias:  Seville:  MSS. :  Certified  Copies  before  the 
Commission. 

■''Blue  Book,  pp.  17,  18. 


11 

possible  attack;  and  wlieii  the  letter  is  read  as  a  wliole, 
it  proves  just  the  reverse  of  the  British  contention.' 

So,  too,  of  the  report  of  Antonio  Lopez  de  la  Puente, 
in  1788,  respecting  the  defences  of  the  Cuyuni  and 
Ynruan  valleys.^  He  recommended  that  the  Caribs  be 
l)revented  from  going  to  the  Dutch  settlement  on  the 
Esequibo,  lest  the  Indians  should  tell  the  Dutch  of  the 
condition  of  the  country,  and  they  should  attack  the 
8|)anish  settlements  on  those  rivers.  Here  is  certainly 
no  evidence  of  "abandonment." 

Again,  it  is  asserted^  that  "the  entire  absence  of  any 
control  by  the  Spaniards  over  the  territory  in  question 
is  further  shown  by  a  Report  of  Don  Miguel  Marmion, 
the  Spanish  Governor"  of  Guayana,  in  1788.  But  even 
tlie  seven  lines  extract  (in  translation)  adduced,^  fails 
utterly  to  support  this  assertion.  While  the  certified 
copy  and  correct  translation  of  the  original  Report  as  a 
whole,^  dated  August  IG,  1788,  tell  quite  a  different  story. 

If  in  1790,  as  intimated  in  the  Blue  Book,  the  Dutch 
and  the  Caribs  were  again  making  raids  upon  the  Span- 
ish settlements  in  the  interior,  it  was  but  natural  that, 
the  Spanish  Colonial  authorities  should  refuse  to  estab- 
lish a  "  new  settlement,"  near  Tumeremo,  unless  the 
Home  Government  would  agree  to  establish  and  main- 
tain an  additional  military  post  "  to  prevent  robberies 
l)y  the  Indians  and  Dutch."® 

II. 

England  acquired  title  to  what  is  now  known  as  British 
Guayana  in  1814.     Her  previous  militar}'  occupations  of 

'  Certified  copy  of  original  MSS.  before  the  Commission. 
2  Cited  in  the  Blue  Book,  p.  18. 
'  Blue  Book,  p.  17. 

'  rb.,  id. 

•'No.  XVIII.,  Archive  General  de  Indias  :  Seville  :  C,  131,  S.  2,  B.  17  ; 
now  before  the  Commission. 

"  Archive  Confidencial,  Caracas,  1790-6;  certified  copies  before  the 
Commission. 


tliG  country  (in  1781,  179G,  and  again  in  1803)  conveyed 
no  title,  as  has  been  many  times  shown.'  Whatever  title 
she  may  have  claimed  or  acquired  by  those  military 
occupations,  was  swept  away  by  the  treaties  of  peace 
which  followed.^  By  the  supplemental  treaty  of  1814,3 
Holland  ceded  to  England  "  in  full  Sovereignty,"  and  for 
a  monetary  consideration,  the  three  "  Settlements  of  Ber- 
bice,  Demerara,  and  Esequibo,"  as  the  limits  of  those 
"  settlements "  had  been  recognized  by  the  Miinster 
Treaty  of  1G4S,  as  they  had  been  interpreted  by  the 
Treaty  of  Aranjuez  of  1701,  and  as  they  stood  at  the  time 
of  the  cession  of  1814.  There  have  been  no  additional 
cessions  to  England  since,  either  by  Holland,  gpain,  or 
Venezuela;  and  it  has  been  many  times  shown  that  the 
native  aboriginal  tribes  had  no  authority  to  make  any 
such  cessions.* 

It  follows,  then,  that  the  alleged  "  marking  out  of 
boundaries"  by  the  British  military  authorities  in  1790^^ 
was  purely  an  ex  parte  arrangement,  and  amounted  to 
nothing.  Plainly  speaking,  it  was  merely  an  unjusti- 
fiable aggression  upon  Spanish  territory  by  a  military 
and  naval  power  which  Spain  was  not  at  that  time  in  a 
position  to  successfully  resist.  There  is  not  the  slightest 
evidence  that  Spain,  if  cognizant  of  this  aggression,  ever 
assented  to  it  for  a  moment. 

Nor  does  it  anywhere  appear,  even  from  the  docu- 
ments cited  in  the  Blue  Book,  that  the  Dutch  were,  at 
any  time  from  1G48  to  179G,  in  the  "  uninterrupted  pos- 
session "  of  a  foot  of  territory  west  of  the  Pumaron  River. 
Indeed,  there  are  very  grave  doubts  whether  they  ever, 
at  any  lime,  held  any  permanent  or  "  uninterrupted  " 

' "  Lord  Salisbury's  Mistakes,"  pp.  2,  3,  4. 

-Treaty  of  Amiens,  Mar.  25,  1802  ;  Peace  of  May,  1814;  Treaty  of  Aug. 
i:i,  1814. 
••  Art.  I. 

*"  British  Aggressions,  etc.,  or  The  Monroe  Doctrine  on  Trial,"  pp.  11-15; 
Wliait.  I>ig.,  vol.  I,  sec.  7. 
■•Blue  I'.ook,  p.  19. 


IS 

possessions  between  the  Pumaron  and  tlie  Esequibo. 
The  evidence  on  this  hitter  point  is  somewhat  conflicting ; 
hut  the  weight  of  testimony  is  that  tlie  Eseqnibo  was 
regarded  as  tlic  true  divisional  line  between  the  Dutch 
and  Spanish  possession,  and  that  any  Dutch  intrusions 
west  and  south  of  that  river  were  constantly  (and  gen- 
erally successfully)  resisted  by  tlie  Spanish  authorities. 
Even  the  documents  and  extracts  cited  or  produced  in 
the  Bhie  Book  fail  to  sliow  to  the  contrary.  They  show 
merely  that  while  the  Dutch  and  Caribs  had  made  fre- 
quent raids  upon  the  Spanish  settlements  and  missions 
west  of  the  Esequibo,  and  that  even  the  Orinoco  Delta 
was  sometimes  infested  b}^  bands  of  alien  smugglers  and 
pirates  (mostly  Dutch)  who  incited  the  Indians  to  insur- 
rection and  pillage,  the  domain  and  jurisdiction  always 
remained  with  Spain. 

The  official  Report  by  Don  Felipe  de  Requena,  of  -Tuly 
29,  1802,  is  cited  in  the  Blue  Book'  to  prove  that  the 
Dutch  held  possessions  on  the  Cuyuni  and  Caroni  rivers. 
The  document,  when  read  as  a  whole  in  the  original  text, 
shows  nothing  of  the  kind.  Even  the  partial  and  care- 
fully selected  "  extracts  "  in  the  imperfect  Englisli  trans- 
lation, as  produced;''  fail  to  establish  the  British  contention 
on  this  point.  It  is  there  stated  merely  that  tiie  Dutch  and 
French  had,  many  decades  before,  founded  settlements  on 
the  Surinam  and  Cayana  rivers ;  that  the  Dutch  had  sub- 
sequently advanced  up  the  Esequibo  River ;  and  the  ap- 
prehension is  expressed  that  they  "  might,"  in  the  course 
of  time,  advance  still  further,  by  way  of  the  Cuyuni  and 
Caroni  rivers,  to  the  Orinoco  itself,  and  "  take  joossession 
of  the  lower  part  of  this  great  river  " — thus  clearly  assert- 
ing, by  necessary  implication,  that  at  that  very  time 
(1<S02)  the  Dutch  had  no  possessions,  "  settlements,"  or 
even  temporary  militar}''  stations  whatever,  either  in  the 
Cuyuni  or  Caroni  valleys,  or  at  or  near  the  mouth  of 
the  Orinoco. 

^  Pages  21  and  139. 
2App.  II.,  p  139. 


14 

Moreover,  the  Report  of  Major  IMcCreagh  of  the  British 
army,  made  at  the  time  of  the  English  military  occupa- 
tion in  1802,  although  cited  in  the  Blue  Book  ^  for  a 
different  purpose,  shows  conclusively  that  the  estuaries 
of  tlie  Orinoco,  as  well  as  the  river  itself  and  its  conflu- 
ents, were  then  under  the  effective  jurisdiction  of  Spain. 
Major  McCreagh  reported  that  he  found  a  Spanish  mili- 
tary post  near  the  Boca  de  Navios ;  that  he  found  also 
S[)anish  pilots  there ;  that  some  distance  further  up  he 
found  another  Spanish  post,  a  Spanish  settlement  of 
"  eight  houses,  and  about  six  Indian  fjimilies,"  the 
sergeant  in  command  being  a  "  white"  Spaniard  ;  tliat  a 
little  further  up  he  found  still  another  militar}'  force,  in 
which  were  "  about  forty-six  Indians,  su})posed  to  be 
soldiers,  with  three  (white)  Si)aniards,  besides  the  lieute- 
nant commanding;"  that  yet  a  little  further  up  he 
found  another  Spanish  force,  composed  (as  usual)  of 
Indians,  whites,  and  Creoles,  but  all  were  Spanish  sub- 
jects, and  in  the  Spanish  military  colonial  service.  "  It 
was,"  he  says,  "  the  rule  to  stop  all  vessels  here  "  (at  a 
j)]ace  called  Barrancas)  "exce[)t  S[taniards,  and  even 
those  except  such  as  are  specially  privileged.  Adhere- 
ing.  however,"  he  continues,  "  to  the  line  of  conduct  which 
I  had  been  ordered  to  pursue,  I  was,  after  some  delav, 
permitted  to  proceed." 

It  is  contended'-  that  the  native  Indian  tribes  in  what 
is  now  the  disputed  territory,  "  had  been  for  a  long  time 
under  the  protection  of  the  Dutch,"  and  that  this  Protec- 
torate "  was  continued  by  the  Representatives  of  Great 
IW-itain."  The  "contemporary  reports  of  the  Governors 
of  ]>ritish  (Juayana  in  the  early  part  of  the  19th  century" 
are  cited  to  ])rove  this.  They  however  prove  only  that 
tlie  Garibs  and  other  hostile  tribes  had,  at  diff'erent  times, 
been  in  "  alliances  "  witji  the  Dutch,  who  had  been  in  the 

'  App.  n.,  p.  154. 
'  I'.liif  I'.ook,  p   -l-l. 


15 

habit  of  making  them  "  annual  presents."  There  is  ab- 
solutely nothing  to  show  that  any  Dutch  "  Protectorates  " 
of  the  Indians  ever  really  existed. 

But  even  if  they  had  existed  (which  nowhere  appears), 
liow  were  they  transferred  to  England  by  the  cession  of 
ISl-l  ?  Nothing  is  therein  said  either  of  "  Protectorates  " 
or  of  the  office  of  "  Protector  of  Indians."  The  cession 
was  specifically  limited  to  the  three  "Settlements  of 
Berbice,  Demerara,  and  Esequibo."  Surinam  was  be- 
yond the  limits  of  the  three  "  Settlements  "  named  ;  there- 
fore Surinam  remained  a  Dutch  possession.  Indian 
Protectorates  (if  there  were  any)  were  beyond  the  limits 
of  the  three  "  Settlements  "  specified;  therefore,  Indian 
Protectorates  (if  there  were  any)  remained  to  the 
Dutch. 

The  destruction  of  a  Spanish  Mission  in  the  interior  of 
Guayan.i,   by   the  Venezuelan   Revolutionary  forces  in 

1816,  and   the  Executive  Decree  of  General  Bolivar,  of 

1817,  are  both  gravely  cited '  in  support  of  the  English 
contention.  The  first  named  proves  nothing  ;  the  second 
[U'oves  too  much.  The  Venezuelan  patriots  were  then  in 
the  midst  of  their  long  struggle  for  independence.  They 
were  at  war  with  the  mother  country,  and  war  meant  the 
destruction  of  the  enemy's  strongholds  and  stragetic 
points  wherever  and  whenever  that  was  possible^  The 
Executive  Decree  of  General  Boliver  named  General 
Sucre  to  be  "  Governor  of  the  old  Fort  of  (Tuayana,"  and 
likcwiM  to  be  "  Military  Governor  of  the  Orinoco  to  the 
old  moutli,"  thus  showing  conclusively  that  the  whole 
region  of  the  Orinoco,  from  the  Delta  upwards,  was  under 
the  effective  jurisdiction  of  the  Venezuelan  revolutionary 
government  as  the  successor  of  Spain. 

It  is  stated  in  the  Blue  Book  (p.  24)  that  Venezuela 
"  declared  her  individual  independence  "  in  1830  !  Ven- 
ezuela "  declared  her  individual  independence  "  July  5, 

1  Blue  Book,  p.  23. 


16 

1811.  She  had  maintained  "  her  individual  indei)end- 
ence"  up  to  1819,  when  she  became  a  constituent  mem- 
ber of  the  old  Colombian  Confederation.  In  1830  she 
withdrew  from  that  compact  of  union  and  resumed  her 
separate  nationality.  It  would  seem  that  even  a  super- 
ficial knowledge  of  Spanish  colonial  history,  or  the 
slightest  acquaintance  with  the  terms  of  the  compact  of 
1811),  ought  to  have  been  sufficient  to  prevent  such  a 
ludicrous  historical  blunder  as  this. 

Recurring  to  the  sul)ject  of  Indian  "  Protectorates," 
documents  are  cited  in  the  Blue  Book  '  to  sustain  the 
assumption  (made  on  page  24)  that  England,  as  the  suc- 
cessor in  title  of  Holland,  exercised  jurisdiction  "  for  a 
considerable  distance  up  the  rivers  Esequibo,  Mazaruni 
and  Cuyuni "  as  late  as  1831.  The  assumption  is  not . 
sustained  even  by  the  carefully  selected  "extracts"  pro- 
duced.    Briefly,  the  case  is  this: 

A  murder  had  been  committed  by  an  Indian  beyond 
the  immediate  limits  of  the  Esequibo  "  settlement."  He 
was  arrested  and  brought  to  trial  before  the  British  colo- 
nial authorities.  The  venue  was  admitted  to  have  been 
beyoiul  the  limits  of  the  colony,  and  in  a  region  inhab- 
ited by  Indians.  The  murdered  person  was  likewise  a 
resident  Indian.  But  it  was  held  that  the  old  Dutch 
"  Protectorate  of  Indians  "  had  extended  over  that  i)ar- 
ticular  region,  and  that  this  "Protectorate"  had  de- 
scended to  the  English.  The  accused  was  accordingly 
tried  and  convicted;  but  he  was  almost  immediately 
released  on  appeal.  Why?  Because  the  evidence  at  the 
trial  had  disclosed  that  the  so-called  "  Protectorate"  was 
a  myth.  A  former  official  of  the  Dutch  colony  (Van 
liyck,  by  name),  testified  that  he  had  "  lived  forty  years  " 
in  the  colony,  and  had  held  the  office  of  "  Protector  of 
the  Indians;"  that  in  that  cai)acity  he  had  always  acted 
"only  as  mediator,"  never  as  a  magistrate;  that  he  had 

»Aii|..  II.,  pf).  168-177.  ~  ~~        ~" 


17 

"  no  authority  to  compel  attendance ;  "  that  he,  in  fact, 
"  had  nothing  to  do  unless  they  (the  Indians)  chose  to 
call  on  "  him  as  "  mediator ;  "  that  he  had  "  no  authority 
over  them  ;  "  that  he  "  never  had  any  authority  to  inter- 
fere "  with  them,  and  certainly  no  jurisdiction  over  them  ; 
and  that  he  was  merely  "authorized  to  give  them  pres- 
ents," and  to  cultivate  them  "  as  finends  and  allies."^ 

It  is  gravely  stated^  that  some  time  about  1831,  Pro- 
testant Missionaries,  from  England,  visited  and  preached 
the  gospel  to  the  natives  on  the  lower  Mazaruni  and 
Cuyuni  rivers.  It  is  even  hinted  that  these  Christian 
teachers  erected  preaching  stations  and  chapels  there. 
The  same  is  true  to-day  of  American  and  English  Pro- 
testant teachers  in  various  parts  of  Venezuela,  Colombia, 
and  Mexico,  but  it  has  never  before  been  intimated  that 
this  fact  transfers  domain  and  jurisdiction  to  the  Ameri- 
can or  English  Governments ! 

Til. 

In  May,  1836,  and  again  in  September  of  the  same 
year,  Sir  Robert  Ker  Porter,  the  British  Diplomatic 
Agent  at  Caracas,  addressed  a  formal  note  to  the  Minister 
of  Foreign  Affairs,  requesting  the  Venezuelan  Govern- 
ment to  establish  and  maintain  buoys  and  beacons  at 
the  very  places  on  the  main  estuary  of  the  Orinoco, 
including  Point  Barima,  now  claimed  and  forcibly  held 
as  British  territory.  And  it  is  admitted^  that  this  fact 
was  known  at  the  British  Foreign  Office,  certainly  as 
early  as  1842,  if  not  before.  But  now,  sixty  years  after 
this  formal  request  was  made,  and  at  least  fifty-four 
years  after  it  is  admitted  to  have  become  known  at  the 

^  Even  if  the  facts  had  beea  otherwise,  it  would  be  a  work  of  superer- 
ogation to  prove  that  "  Indian  Protectorates  "  on  this  continent  by  any 
European  power  other  tlian  the  original  discoverer  or  its  legal  successor, 
are  absolute  nullities.     Wharton's  Digest,  Vol.  I.,  sec.  7. 

-Blue  Book,  p.  24. 

3  Blue  Book,  p,  26. 


18 

Foreign  Office,  Her  Majesty's  Government  gravely  dis- 
claims and  disavows  this  official  act  of  their  duly  ac- 
credited representative.  Moreover,  it  is  seriously  as- 
serted ^  that "  the  Venezuelan  Government  never  returned 
any  reply  "  to  sir  Robert's  official  request.  Turning, 
however,  to  page  245  of  the  Blue  Book  itself,  we  find 
there  reproduced,  in  somewhat  defective  translation,  a 
formal  official  reply  by  the  Venezuelan  Government,  dated 
June  15,  1836,  promising  compliance  with  Sir  Robert's 
request.  It  may  be  added  that,  after  some  delay,  this 
promise  was  complied  with,  and  that  the  buoys  and 
beacons  were  there  in  1886,  when  the  English  took  for- 
cible possession  of  those  places  in  open  violation  of 
repeated  pledges. 

Up  to  1839,  not  a  single  map  could  be  found  on  which 
was  traced  a  divisional  line  west  of  Cape  Nassau.  A  few 
of  the  maps  of  that  and  anterior  dates  gave  Cape  Nassau 
as  the  starting  point,  and  the  Moroco  River  as  the  line. 
A  very  much  larger  number  gave  Cape  Nassau  as  the 
starting  point  and  the  Pumaron  River  as  the  line.  Others, 
still  more  authentic,  including  Myers  and  other  eminent 
P^nglish  geographers,  gave  the  western  estuary  of  the 
Esequibo  as  the  starting  point,  and  the  river  Esequibo 
itself  as  the  true  divisional  line.  8o  that,  up  to  1839,  the 
only  territory  in  dispute  was,  at  most,  the  narrow  strip 
between  the  Moroco  and  Esequibo  rivers.  Venezuela's 
title  to  the  vast  domain  southward  of  this  had  never 
once  been  called  into  question. 

In  1840  Mr.  (afterwards  Sir  Robert)  Schomburgk  was 
emi)loycd  by  Her  Majesty's  Government  to  "  survey  and 
mark  out"  the  frontier  boundaries  of  British  Guayana. 
It  was  i)urely  an  ex-jmrte  arrangement.  Venezuela  was 
not  asked  to  participate  in  it,  nor  was  her  assent  solicited. 
It  was  then,  for  the  first  time,  that  "a  map  was  pre- 
pared"  in   accordance  with    the   Schomburgk   survey, 

'Blue  Book,  p.  2G. 


19 

which  extended  the  British  claim  to  the  Lower  Orinoco 
and  to  the  Lower  Mazaruni  and  Cuyuni  rivers.  This 
capricious  line  (still  known  as  "  the  Schoniburgk  line  "), 
represented  not  an  absolute,  but  only  a  possible,  future 
claim  by  Great  Britain.  It  was  professedly  established 
"  only  as  a  preliminary  measure  "  to  the  negotiation  .of 
boundary  treaties  with  "  adjacent  countries."  In  case 
those  countries  should  make  "  any  objections,"  then 
"  Her  Majesty's  Government  "  would  "give  such  answers 
as  might  appear  proper  and  just."  ^ 

Venezuela  did  make  "  objections."  She  not  only 
objected,  but  remonstrated  and  protested.  She  not  only 
remonstrated  and  protested,  but  refused,  absolutely,  to 
enter  into  any  negotiation  of  a  boundary  treaty  so  long 
as  that  capricious  line  should  be  allowed  to  stand.^ 
Finally,  the  "  Schomburgk  line "  was  explicitly  dis- 
claimed, and  its  marks  and  posts  ordered  obliterated  or 
taken  down.^  Her  Majesty's  Government  then  indicated 
Cape  Nassau  as  the  starting  point  of  a  divisional  line. 

Under  these  circumstances,  it  may  well  seem  incredi- 
ble that,  forty -three  years  later,  the  question  of  boundary 
being  still  unsettled,  and  the  Agreement  of  1850*  still 
in  force,  that  the  discarded  "  Schomburgk  line  "  should 
be  revived  and  claimed  by  Her  Majesty's  Government  as 
an  absolute  boundary  within  which  no  proposition  look- 
ing to  peaceful  arbitration  would  be  entertained  !  It  is 
even  more  incredible  that  in  order  to  sustain  this  un- 
tenable position,  there  should  be  produced  a  carefully 
selected  and  very  misleading  "  extract "   from  a  letter 


1  Lord  Levesen  to  Mr.  James  Stephen,  March,  1840  ;  see  "  Official  Hist. 
Discus.,  etc.,  on  Guayana  Boundaries,"  1896,  already  before  the  Com- 
mission. 

2  Dr.  Fortique  to  Lord  Aberdeen,  Nov.  18,  1841  ;  also,  same  to  same, 
Dec.  8,  1841  ;  also,  same  to  same,  Jan.  10,  1842, 

3  Lord  Aberdeen  to  Dr.  Fortique,  Jan.  31,  1842. 
*  See  Lord  Salisbury's  Mistakes,"  pp.  7,8. 


20 

dated  July  15,  1839,  addressed  to  the  Marquis  of  Nor- 
luaiiby  by  Governor  Light  of  Demerara.^ 

Elsewhere  in  the  Blue  Book,^  it  is  stated  that  Vene- 
zuela's first  formal  "  claim  that  tlie  territory  of  the  Re- 
public extended  to  the  Esequibo"  was  made  in  1844. 
The  first  formal  claim  to  that  limit  was  put  fortli  as 
early  as  1822,  as  has  been  shown  already,^  and  that  claim 
has  been  persistently  and  consistently  maintained  ever 
since  whenever  the  question  came  up  for  discussion. 

That  portion  of  the  Blue  Book  covering  the  period 
from  1850  to  date,  seems  to  have  been  anticipated  by 
Lord  Salisbury  in  his  note  of  November  last ;  and  since 
all  the  points  therein  have  received  due  attention  already, 
it  is  not  worth  while  to  go  over  them  again. 

There  is,  however,  one  feature  of  the  British  conten- 
tion, not  liitherto  very  prominent,  yet  ever  lurking  in 
the  back  ground,  which  is  of  the  gravest  import.  If 
the  recent  "  inspired  "  utterances  of  the  London  court 
journals  are  to  be  credited,  it  is  now  conceded  that  the 
capricious  "  Schomburg  line  "  will  have  to  be  abandoned. 
That  line  is  no  longer  claimed  as  an  absolute  limit, 
within  which  no  proposal  for  arbitration  can  be  enter- 
tained. But  it  is  contended  that  all  "  settled  districts  " 
within  that  line,  or  even  those  beyond  it,  must  be  ex- 
emp)ted  from  arbitration.  Her  Majesty's  Government  no 
longer  claims  "  indefeasable  title"  to  the  soil.  It  is 
stated  only  that  "  British  subjects "  are  settled  there, 
and  that  Her  Majesty's  Government  must  protect  them 
in  tlLeir  interests ! 

It  has  been  many  times  shown  that  every  British 
settlement  west  of  the  Esequibo,  whether  large  or  small, 

^  Blue  Book,  App.,  p.  81.  Compare  this  "  extract "  with  certified  copy  of 
the  original,  now   before   the  Commission  ! 

2  Page  27. 

3  "  Lord  Salisbury's  Mistakes,"  p,  1  ;  MS.  Instruc.  to  Colombian  Min- 
ister  at   London,  1822  ;  "  Official  History  of  the  Boundary  Dispute,"  etc. 


21 

was  placed  there  over  the  protests  and  remonstrances  of 
the  Venezuelan  Government. '  And  it  has  been  quite 
as  often  shown  that  every  such  settlement,  large  or  small, 
west  of  the  Moroco  and  southward  of  the  Cuyuni  was 
planted  there  in  open  violation  of  the  Agreement  of 
1850.  ^  It  has  been  likewise  pointed  out  that  nearly  two 
years  after  the  British  forces  had  taken  possession  of 
Point  Barima  and  the  Amacura  mouth,  the  Colonial 
Government  of  Demerara  warned  British  settlers  there 
that  they  could  expect  no  protection,  or  any  compensa- 
tion for  losses,  in  case  the  boundary  question  should-  be 
finally  decided  in  favor  of  Venezuela.^ 

In  view  of  these  facts,  this  latest  phase  of  the  British 
contention  may  well  excite  apprehension.  If  mere  de 
facto  British  "  settlements,"  however  illegal  in  origin,  are 
to  constitute  a  basis  of  British  claim  to  domain  and  juris- 
diction in  one  part  of  Venezuela,  they  may  do  so  in  other 
parts  of  the  Republic.  If  in  any  part  of  Venezuela,  then 
why  not  in  any  part  of  any  other  Central  or  South 
American  State?  And  if  the  principle  is  to  be  admitted 
with  respect  to  all  Central  and  South  American  States, 
why  exclude  any  one  of  the  territories  or  commonwealths 
of  the  United  States  of  North  America? 

William  L.  Scruggs, 
Legal  Adviser  of  the  Venezuelan 

Government,  and  Special  Counsel 
before  the  Boundary  Commission. 

^  "  British  Aggression  in  Venezuela,  etc."  IV.,  pp.  15-24  :  "  Official  Hist., 
etc.,  Boundary  Discus.,"  I.,  II.,  III.,  IV.,  V.,  VI.,  VII., :  Also  correspondence 
between  General  Blanco  and  Earl  Granville,  and  his  successors,  pp.  81-1(38. 

"^ lb.,  id.:  also,  "Lord  Salisbury's  Mistakes,"  pp.  7,  8. 

^Ib.,  id.,  p.  7. 


fi 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  F/ 


AA    000  925  610 


THE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DAT 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


Series  9482 


